Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 12-19-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Well, allow me to introduce some articles. Of course, the articles are not "evidence" themselves but the opinion of some religious professor's on the subject matter. I do not know WHAT evidence they rely upon to make the claims they do and I am still looking for this "evidence," if it even exists.

[...]We see this even in Paul's letters. Paul himself, remember, doesn't write a gospel. He actually doesn't tell us much about the life of Jesus at all. He never once mentions a miracle story. He tells us nothing about the birth. He never tells us anything about teaching in parables or any of those other typical features of the gospel tradition of Jesus. What Paul does tell us about is the death, and he does so in a form that indicates that he's actually reciting a well-known body of material. So when he tells us, "I received and I handed on to you," he's referring to his preaching, but he's also telling us that what he preaches, that is the material that he delivers, is actually developed through the oral tradition itself.

This is laughable, and such a typical example of NT "scholarship"'s way of spinning positive conclusions out of complete lack of evidence. What's the indication that what Paul received was a part of stories about the life of a human Joshua Messiah? In the context it's given, what he "received" could just as easily have been the simple creed he recites. He doesn't say "what I received (amongst a bunch of other miscellanous stuff about the life of Joshua Messiah while he was living on Earth), was that ... etc., etc." Of course one wouldn't expect him to say that, but there's nothing in the rest of Paul to suggest or hint of such a background. White just conjures the whole castle of a gospel-like "oral tradition" out of thin air.

IOW, the way White writes it, one imagines this halo of pious folk passing on their treasured stories about the life of this amazing person. But that cloud of witnesses is totally imaginary and not supported by the texts he's using at all.

Quote:

[B]1 Corinthians 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Again, this seems to me just comically inept. If Paul received this from the Lord, then he didn't receive it from some supposed oral tradition!

Quote:

15. Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Here, Paul is referring to events which would subsequently be presented in the Gospels BEFORE the Gospels are written. This is evidence the Gospel accounts were oral stories later transformed into a written text.

What events? White himself in the bit you quote before tells us:

Now here's what he tells us, he says that Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, he relates it to prophecy. Then he says, "Jesus appeared". He doesn't tell us about the empty tomb. There's no reference to that part of the story at all. Instead he tells us Jesus appeared, first to Peter and then the twelve, next to 500 people, some of whom had already died by the time Paul heard the story.

Now in each of these two cases it's interesting that we have information that we don't get anywhere else in the gospels tradition.

So those two details are not actually in the gospel tradition!

White's reasoning is a bit odd here, to say the least - he presents two details that are not transmitted later on through his oral tradition to the gospels, to try and persuade us that there was oral tradition that did transmit stuff.

I don't object to the idea of an oral tradition per se, but to my mind wouldn't evidence for that be found more in traces in the style of language used or something?

Amaleq13 · 12-19-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

[I] Importance of the Oral Tradition: It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers.

While I agree that is entirely reasonable to assume that at least some stories about Jesus were circulating in an oral tradition, the claim above is clearly hyperbole. To my knowledge, there is no "clear" indication that any particular story or passage can be reliably traced back to an oral tradition.

What is clear is the literary connection between the Gospel stories. Going beyond that is necessarily speculative and it is misleading, at the very least, to suggest more certainty that this.

Quote:

We see this even in Paul's letters. Paul himself, remember, doesn't write a gospel. He actually doesn't tell us much about the life of Jesus at all. He never once mentions a miracle story. He tells us nothing about the birth. He never tells us anything about teaching in parables or any of those other typical features of the gospel tradition of Jesus.

One might wonder, from this, why we find no trace of the alleged oral tradition the author is so certain formed the foundation for all these subsequent Gospel stories.

Deliberately ignored or simply unaware? And how do you tell the difference? Why doesn't the author address this rather obvious problem for his earlier assertion?

Quote:

Now in each of these two cases it's interesting that we have information that we don't get anywhere else in the gospels tradition. So it's a unit of oral material that is very important to the development of the tradition....

How is information that was apparently either lost or ignored by the time of the authorship of the Gospels "important to the development of the tradition"?

Quote:

...We discovered that there are several different portraits of Jesus enshrined in the shape of the traditions about him, and that these seem to go back to very early times...

This is supposed to enhance the reliability of the alleged oral basis for the Gospel stories? :huh:

Quote:

Here, Paul is referring to events which would subsequently be presented in the Gospels BEFORE the Gospels are written. This is evidence the Gospel accounts were oral stories later transformed into a written text.

Is it reasonable to generalize from one possible example of an oral tradition leading to a part of the Gospel story to the entire collection?

This sort of hyperbole is no more helpful to the discussion than that which is obtained from certain mythicists regarding the "connection" between Christ belief and pagan beliefs.

Clivedurdle · 12-19-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,

Quote:

For three days and three nights Jonah languishes inside the fish's belly.

:devil1:

James Madison · 12-19-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Well, I think the Gospels, which were written, read, and believed by some early christians, is evidence which undermines your contention above. Of course, I am assuming the Gospels were written within the time frame you describe as the "early days." I think the Gospels certainly qualify as coming into existence during the "early days" since Mark is estimated to have been written around 70 a.d., Matthew 70-100 a.d., Luke and John 90-100 a.d. If those dates do not qualify as the "early days" of christianity, then nothing does. The Gospels were read and believed in by some of the early christians and consequently, those early christians, in the early days, it was a historical Jesus who had been known as a human being. The very Gospel of John concludes with remarks making this claim.

I'd say that the gospels postdate the 70 CE watershed, and I think that whatever Christianity was before that was probably different from what it became after that. 70 years is a long time for something to mutate quite drastically through "chinese whispers", especially given the "break" and tragedy in Jewish culture at 70 CE and roundabouts.

I look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 and I don't see anything even faintly resembling the idea that the Messiah Paul is speaking about was known to any of the Jerusalem people he speaks about as a human being. Historical, yes, someone from the past, yes, but known to Cephas, the 12, the 500, as a human being prior to their revelation about him? No. Nor is there anything like this sort of necessary (for an HJ as rationalists understand it) connection anywhere in any of Paul's letters, Hebrews, etc. Taken together with the absence of any preaching or teaching by Joshua Messiah that's not already in the OT, this suggests to me very strongly that Joshua Messiah was not a human being known to any of the earliest Christians - he was an idea, a revision of the traditional Messiah idea, an entity "seen" in scripture and visionary experience.

What then do you construe of the verses: "1 Corinthians Chapter 15: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Furthermore, some of your remarks strengthen my contention. Is it possible these oral stories varied to some degree? Yes. Do we have evidence for this in the Gospels? Yes. The synoptic Gospels present a different Jesus than the one portrayed in the Gospel of John. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...eallyknow.html

The point is, however, whether oral or written in the Gospels, some early christians were espousing an idea which did not adhere to the platonic/mysticism ideas popular at the time among other writers/authors.

Clivedurdle · 12-19-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

This sort of hyperbole is no more helpful to the discussion than that which is obtained from certain mythicists regarding the "connection" between Christ belief and pagan beliefs.

Like the barbarian (pagan) concept of Most High?

James Madison · 12-19-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Well, allow me to introduce some articles. Of course, the articles are not "evidence" themselves but the opinion of some religious professor's on the subject matter. I do not know WHAT evidence they rely upon to make the claims they do and I am still looking for this "evidence," if it even exists.

[...]We see this even in Paul's letters. Paul himself, remember, doesn't write a gospel. He actually doesn't tell us much about the life of Jesus at all. He never once mentions a miracle story. He tells us nothing about the birth. He never tells us anything about teaching in parables or any of those other typical features of the gospel tradition of Jesus. What Paul does tell us about is the death, and he does so in a form that indicates that he's actually reciting a well-known body of material. So when he tells us, "I received and I handed on to you," he's referring to his preaching, but he's also telling us that what he preaches, that is the material that he delivers, is actually developed through the oral tradition itself.

IOW, the way White writes it, one imagines this halo of pious folk passing on their treasured stories about the life of this amazing person. But that cloud of witnesses is totally imaginary and not supported by the texts he's using at all.

Quote:

Here, Paul is referring to events which would subsequently be presented in the Gospels BEFORE the Gospels are written. This is evidence the Gospel accounts were oral stories later transformed into a written text.

What events? White himself in the bit you quote before tells us:

Now here's what he tells us, he says that Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, he relates it to prophecy. Then he says, "Jesus appeared". He doesn't tell us about the empty tomb. There's no reference to that part of the story at all. Instead he tells us Jesus appeared, first to Peter and then the twelve, next to 500 people, some of whom had already died by the time Paul heard the story.

Now in each of these two cases it's interesting that we have information that we don't get anywhere else in the gospels tradition.

So those two details are not actually in the gospel tradition!

White's reasoning is a bit odd here, to say the least - he presents two details that are not transmitted later on through his oral tradition to the gospels, to try and persuade us that there was oral tradition that did transmit stuff.

Quote:

This is laughable, and such a typical example of NT "scholarship"'s way of spinning positive conclusions out of complete lack of evidence.

What evidence permits you to make this conclusion?

Quote:

What's the indication that what Paul received was a part of stories about the life of a human Joshua Messiah? In the context it's given, what he "received" could just as easily have been the simple creed he recites. He doesn't say "what I received (amongst a bunch of other miscellanous stuff about the life of Joshua Messiah while he was living on Earth), was that ... etc., etc." Of course one wouldn't expect him to say that, but there's nothing in the rest of Paul to suggest or hint of such a background. White just conjures the whole castle of a gospel-like "oral tradition" out of thin air.

Just like in a criminal trial, where there exists possibly innumberable possibilities, the question is which is more reasonable than the others? There is a source for Paul's information, either Paul fabricated it himself, or Paul had someone else tell him the information. Paul's account in Corinthians of the Last Supper and his appearance to the 11 and 500 bretheren could be a recitation of his creed but is this reasonable? I do not think your explanation is as reasonable as the one provided by White. Why? Well, what does Paul say about himself? Paul openly admits he persecuted the "Church of God" and we can extrapolate from this there were already in existence followers of "Christ." What were they following? Well, the Gospels were not yet in existence so they must have been following oral stories. Now, this is evidence which can be used to argue against your hypothesis Paul fabricated those events to which he speaks in Corinthians. Albeit, it is not the strongest evidence, in fact I can readily admit by itself it is weak circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

I don't object to the idea of an oral tradition per se, but to my mind wouldn't evidence for that be found more in traces in the style of language used or something

Well I guess this is an issue to be resolved. What evidence would one look for to determine the existence of oral tradition?

gurugeorge · 12-19-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

What then do you construe of the verses: "1 Corinthians Chapter 15: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Just what I've been saying. The scenario this passage conjures up to my mind is that there's a religious community who have a big idea: they purport to "see" in scripture that the Messiah, rather than being someone to come, has already been, and did some stuff that was rather unexpected for the traditional Jewish Messiah (died, buried, rose). There's an implication of some sort of Lourdes-like mass hysteria event with visionary experiences all round. Some of them preach this "good news of a victory won" (become apostles of it). Paul latches onto the idea rather late, and has his own visionary epiphany.

See the trouble is, one is accustomed, when reading this, to have the traditional image of "Jesus Christ, meek and mild" in one's head when one reads "Christ .... etc." But actually, if you read it in context (of the rest of Paula and Hebrews), what's being said is something like:

See the Messiah? Well guess what! Don't expect to wait around for him because he's already been, and furthermore the victory he won wasn't a great military victory like we expected - no, it was a spiritual victory for all us Jews (later, with Paul, for everyone). He hasn't just conquered the world - he's done something far more wonderful, he's conquered death itself and brought the kingdom of God to this earth.

It's like, this small religious community has a Big Idea about the Messiah, and they view the Messiah differently from the traditional idea of a great king who will put the Jews on top. They put him in the past rather than the future. Precisely when in the past is kind of unimportant to them; nor are they particularly interested in anything he said because he's not a preacher (as the historical Jesus would perhaps have to be to make sense of him). But as the message gets passed on people start wondering and "filling in the gaps" - hence, eventually, stories that eventually coalesce, in folk-tale fashion, brought into sharp focus by "Mark", into the familiar gospel Jesus. (i.e. I'm positing something a bit like an oral tradition, but not a strained idea of an oral tradition that's supposed to be passing on the story of some guy who actually lived, but a more natural folk tradition of tales being made up about a mythical being that "fill in the gaps" and satisfy the emotions of devotees - like what comic fans do when they discuss their favourite superhero - "how did Magneto manage to survive x? - oh well maybe if Cyclops did such and such, when Y, blah de blah")

Quote:

Furthermore, some of your remarks strengthen my contention. Is it possible these oral stories varied to some degree? Yes. Do we have evidence for this in the Gospels? Yes. The synoptic Gospels present a different Jesus than the one portrayed in the Gospel of John. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...eallyknow.html

Variation in gospels doesn't necessarily show "variation in oral stories" - it has to be shown first that there are oral stories. The variation could be due to any number of things - the most common culprit being theological axe-grinding. (Ehrman is big on this.)

Quote:

The point is, however, whether oral or written in the Gospels, some early christians were espousing an idea which did not adhere to the platonic/mysticism ideas popular at the time among other writers/authors.

I don't think so far as mysticism goes, Platonic mysticism would have been as much in their intellectual atmosphere as much as Jewish mysticism (Merkabah, Theraputae, Essenes). Mysticism is an experiential knack that's passed on, not something you can understand from books. As I said, I think the more Platonic echoes (as well as Mysteries echoes, apart from the initial dying/rising concept itself, which could as easily come from the Jewish area itself, e.g. Canaan, home of Baal) come later as Christianity spreads. But anyway, since both visionary experience and mysticism have universal aspects to them (based on our common physiology and the way our brains work), there would be some similarity in tropes (e.g. "ascension" journeys = coming out of the cave = rising to a "noetic" understanding).

gurugeorge · 12-19-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Just like in a criminal trial, where there exists possibly innumberable possibilities, the question is which is more reasonable than the others? There is a source for Paul's information, either Paul fabricated it himself, or Paul had someone else tell him the information. Paul's account in Corinthians of the Last Supper and his appearance to the 11 and 500 bretheren could be a recitation of his creed but is this reasonable?

The context for 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is that he's giving this little passage as a sort of reminder of "what we believe".

Quote:

I do not think your explanation is as reasonable as the one provided by White. Why? Well, what does Paul say about himself? Paul openly admits he persecuted the "Church of God" and we can extrapolate from this there were already in existence followers of "Christ." What were they following? Well, the Gospels were not yet in existence so they must have been following oral stories.

Well, if there was a historical Jesus they were following him, as a recently-deceased-and-risen human being.

But if there wasn't, then they were believers in a new Messiah idea.

Quote:

Now, this is evidence which can be used to argue against your hypothesis Paul fabricated those events to which he speaks in Corinthians. Albeit, it is not the strongest evidence, in fact I can readily admit by itself it is weak circumstantial evidence.

Eh? I don't think Paul fabricated anything: what Paul says seems to me to say that he got wind of this new Messiah idea that these Jerusalem visionaries/mystics (possibly mystics, more likely just visionaries, Paul is more of a mystic) were promulgating, then (perhaps) at first persecuted its followers (because after all the idea of a Messiah not to come but one who has been, and who wasn't a military victor, and died an ignominious death, would be a "stumbling block" to Jews with a more traditional expectations about the Messiah), and then later came to have a visionary experience confirming (to him) that those guys' new idea of the Messiah was correct. Since Paul wasn't alive when the purported human Joshua must have been alive, he's obviously talking about a visionary experience of Joshua Messiah himself giving Paul some details about His "betrayal" and "last supper".

James Madison · 12-19-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

What then do you construe of the verses: "1 Corinthians Chapter 15: Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Just what I've been saying. The scenario this passage conjures up to my mind is that there's a religious community who have a big idea: they purport to "see" in scripture that the Messiah, rather than being someone to come, has already been, and did some stuff that was rather unexpected for the traditional Jewish Messiah (died, buried, rose). There's an implication of some sort of Lourdes-like mass hysteria event with visionary experiences all round. Some of them preach this "good news of a victory won" (become apostles of it). Paul latches onto the idea rather late, and has his own visionary epiphany.

See the trouble is, one is accustomed, when reading this, to have the traditional image of "Jesus Christ, meek and mild" in one's head when one reads "Christ .... etc." But actually, if you read it in context (of the rest of Paula and Hebrews), what's being said is something like:

See the Messiah? Well guess what! Don't expect to wait around for him because he's already been, and furthermore the victory he won wasn't a great military victory like we expected - no, it was a spiritual victory for all us Jews (later, with Paul, for everyone). He hasn't just conquered the world - he's done something far more wonderful, he's conquered death itself and brought the kingdom of God to this earth.

It's like, this small religious community has a Big Idea about the Messiah, and they view the Messiah differently from the traditional idea of a great king who will put the Jews on top. They put him in the past rather than the future. Precisely when in the past is kind of unimportant to them; nor are they particularly interested in anything he said because he's not a preacher (as the historical Jesus would perhaps have to be to make sense of him). But as the message gets passed on people start wondering and "filling in the gaps" - hence, eventually, stories that eventually coalesce, in folk-tale fashion, brought into sharp focus by "Mark", into the familiar gospel Jesus. (i.e. I'm positing something a bit like an oral tradition, but not a strained idea of an oral tradition that's supposed to be passing on the story of some guy who actually lived, but a more natural folk tradition of tales being made up about a mythical being that "fill in the gaps" and satisfy the emotions of devotees.)

Variation in gospels doesn't necessarily show "variation in oral stories" - it has to be shown first that there are oral stories. The variation could be due to any number of things - the most common culprit being theological axe-grinding. (Ehrman is big on this.)

Quote:

The point is, however, whether oral or written in the Gospels, some early christians were espousing an idea which did not adhere to the platonic/mysticism ideas popular at the time among other writers/authors.

Quote:

Variation in gospels doesn't necessarily show "variation in oral stories" - it has to be shown first that there are oral stories. The variation could be due to any number of things - the most common culprit being theological axe-grinding. (Ehrman is big on this.)

Isn't it impossible to find concrete evidence for oral stories by virtue of the fact they are "oral"? I think so and if someone is insisting on find "evidence" for the existence of oral stories, they may be waiting a very long time. Just as, in a criminal trial, there is rarely if ever "evidence" for intent to commit the crime but rather "intent" is inferred, beyond a reasonable doubt, by other means, such as circumstantial evidence corroborated by expert testimony.

I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably support the proposition oral stories were first with the Gospels coming later on the basis of the oral stories.

Amaleq13 · 12-19-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Madison

Isn't it impossible to find concrete evidence for oral stories by virtue of the fact they are "oral"?

Yes and that is precisely why we can so readily recognize the hyperbole in your author's assertions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.